Magnum FP planter barrier

ABSTRACT

Concrete barricades like crash barriers create an unsettling symbolism when applied to buildings, commercial establishments or government offices and skyscrapers. It suggests a state of heightened security, a siege outlook, or worse, appears like a chunk of concrete that does not belong with the aesthetics of the area.  
     Three-dimensionally designed barriers are more pleasing than concrete barricade structures. Curved surface is perceived as more desirable than a flat surface. Naturally proportion and symmetry has to be addressed, but a more complex shape, properly executed, is perceived as more pleasing than a planar, rectilinear shape. Three-dimensional shapes are desirable for a barrier not only for aesthetic purposes but also of the enhanced ability of these shapes to create “progressive resistance” and diversion to the impact of a moving vehicle.  
     Cement-based materials can be reinforced with glass fibers to dramatically increase product strength while reducing product weight because of the consequent thinner, stronger wall sections. Conventional concrete has the trait known as “brittle failure” because it has a semi-crystalline structure, which tends to shatter on impact. This is dangerous when subjected to explosive force because ballistic debris is created which can create significant collateral damage.  
     The Magnum force protection Planter Barrier is specially made of composite glass fiber reinforced concrete that holds the material together because the fibers are dispersed randomly and lay in all directions within the material matrix. It is less expensive than pre-cast or cast in place concrete because the tooling costs less and does not have to hold the weight of wet castable concrete. It does not need an inner mold or plug in shapes requiring an open or hollow area. The finish or appearance need only be in the face coat of the outer layer enclosure shell, while pre-cast or cast in place concrete needs to be throughout the entire mix.  
     Large amounts of kinetic energy must be dissipated when a moving vehicle impacts a relatively immovable object like a barrier. The resistance of the barrier is the result of the strength to resist the impact multiplied by the duration of the impact. For example, a pile of hay can slow a speeding vehicle to a stop over time, as does a massive concrete wall instantaneously. Designs that create a progressive impact by virtue of the three dimensional shape are more effective for their mass than a conventional flat concrete wall. This explains why the Magnum force protection planter barrier is more effective than a massive flat retaining wall with thicker walls, heavier rebar, and deeper foundations.  
     The Magnum force protection Planter Barrier is engineered cement mortar with countless strands of embedded glass fiber; it is a true composite material. It does not have the graded rock aggregates or steel-reinforcing bars normally associated with concrete. The principal material asset is glass fiber reinforced concrete or GFRC, with the ability to have strength when stretched. This tensile strength characteristic also creates dramatically enhanced impact strength. It shares equally the two primary assets of conventional concrete, which are compressive strength and longevity.  
     Consequently, series of levels of resistance are produced by this invention, specifically beginning with the outer enclosure shell, followed by a compacted cement back fill with rebar, a planting compartment encasement, the plant medium or soil fill, the force deflective lower back surface feature of the planting compartment and the thicker cement back fill of the rear rebar caging supported by the back outer shell enclosure.

[0001] This invention is related to my co-pending patent applications utilizing composite stone and glass fiber technology, namely: U.S. Ser. Nos.—60/380,150 filed May 7, 2002 60/380,149 filed May 7, 2002 60/379,706 filed May 13, 2002 and 60/379,641 filed May 13, 2002.

BACKGROUND OF INVENTION

[0002] 1. Field of Invention

[0003] This invention relates to composite concrete barrier, specifically to such planter barriers designed to resist frontal attack of a crashing vehicle.

[0004] 2. Prior Art

[0005] Basic principles of concrete barriers are generally unknown or misunderstood. Concrete barriers appear to be simple and uncomplicated devices, but in reality they can be sophisticated. Inventors created several types of barriers intended for roads and bridges comprising of impact-absorbing elements or for the purpose of separating vehicular traffic as in the case of U.S. Pat. No. 5,651,635 to Nagle (1997), U.S. Pat. No. 5,720,470 to Johansson (1998) or U.S. Pat. No. 6,203,242 to Englund.

[0006] Crash barrier used as a divider separating the roadways are the most common type. Such barriers are disadvantageous since they are expansive and time-consuming both to mount and to repair after being damaged, and they have poor collision properties since vehicles striking against them usually bounce back into their own passageway at the risk of colliding with vehicles traveling in the same direction.

[0007] Crash barriers of homogeneous and heavy concrete wall elements comprise an upwardly extending wall portion and a lower base portion. This barricade type is composed of a plurality of such barrier elements successively arranged in a row. Such crash barriers are based on the principle that their mass is to be so great that in a collision they are not dislodged at all or at least but to a very small extent. In a possible collision, they will therefore act as a solid wall with no possibility of soft absorption of the collision forces. Such barrier elements are, owing to their great mass per unit of length, expensive to buy and time-consuming to mount.

[0008] There have been several systems proposed or used for reducing the damages to motor vehicles and injuries to their occupants when the vehicles accidentally impact the concrete barriers. One system is known using a continuous series of vertical cylinders as has been used along vehicle racetracks. The cylinders are positioned adjacent the concrete wall or barrier and are covered by an overlapping sheet of high density polyethylene material. The cost of this system is substantial and is therefore primarily used on concrete walls or barriers at racetracks adjacent the seating area for patrons.

[0009] U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,681,302 and 5,054,954 disclose other forms of energy absorbing roadway barriers which involve formed or molded sheets or bodies of plastics material to form a container defining a chamber. The chamber is filled with a liquid or a filler material which can absorb impact forces, sometimes by being forced out of the container when the container is crushed by an impacting vehicle.

[0010] Other barricade systems featuring movable or pivotally interconnected sections can sustain structural damage when struck and deflected by an automobile or other vehicle. One type of damage that can occur is breakage at the corners of the modules when they are deflected or moved in such a way as to bring the corners of adjacent modules into direct exposure causing more hazard than protection to impacting vehicles.

[0011] Most commonly known design of concrete barriers are the Jersey shape barriers. These inverse cone shape barrier is intended to minimize sheet metal damage to vehicles by allowing tires to ride up on the lower sloped face. However, it is only necessary to lift the vehicle enough to reduce the friction between the tires and the paved surface. This aides in banking and redirecting the vehicle. If the vehicle is lifted too high into the air, it may yaw, pitch or roll which can cause the vehicle to roll over when the wheels come in contact with the ground again.

[0012] On the other hand, vertical concrete parapet walls do not have this energy management feature, but crash tests have demonstrated that they can perform acceptably as traffic barriers. All of the energy absorption in an impact with a rigid vertical wall is due to crushing of the vehicle. Bumpers usually do not slide up vertical concrete walls and lift the vehicle. This minimizes the potential for vehicle rollover. Because the vehicle is not lifted and tilted by the vertical face, this also increases the possibility of a motorist's head going through the window and contacting the vertical barrier.

[0013] Objects and Advantages

[0014] Accordingly, besides the objects and advantages of the crash barriers cited above, the objects and advantages of the present invention are:

[0015] 1) to provide a planter barrier that is engineered to absorb a progressive impact;

[0016] 2) to provide a planter barrier that has three dimensional shape and decorative appearance;

[0017] 3) to provide a planter barrier with thinner walls and smaller foundation;

[0018] 4) to provide a planter barrier that can be shipped to the job-site economically because of their light-weight construction.

[0019] 5) to provide a planter barrier with high level of protection;

[0020] Further objects and advantages of my invention will become apparent from a consideration of the drawings and ensuing description.

DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

[0021] In the drawings, related figures are supplied with alphabetic suffixes.

[0022]FIG. 1 is a cross sectional isometric view showing various aspects of the barrier comprising of an outer shell, rebar caging and planting compartment.

[0023]FIG. 2 presents the aesthetic design and elevation of the planter barrier, as well as depth of trenching from the ground surface.

[0024]FIG. 3 illustrate a cross section view of the internal construction relative to the thickness and aesthetic detail of the outer layer, a mid layer rebar caging compacted with aggregate cement, and a planting compartment layer.

[0025]FIG. 4 shows a side view of the rebar caging design. FIG. 4A is a plan view of said rebar. FIG. 4B is an elevated view of the same.

[0026]FIG. 5 is a side view of the planting compartment detail. FIG. 5A is a plan view of the said planting compartment shown in relation to the outer shell enclosure. FIG. 5B is an elevated view of the planting compartment. The broken line indicates the level of chamfered base relative to the back vertical walling.

[0027]FIG. 6 shows a broken section of composite stone showing embedded glass fiber.

REFERENCE NUMERALS IN DRAWINGS

[0028] Reference Numerals in Drawings: 10 outer enclosure shell 11 rebar caging 12 planting compartment 13 three-dimensional shape 14 trenching depth 15 compacted cement 16 thickness detail 17 back vertical wall surface 18 front vertical wall surface 19 chamfered base design 20 soil fill or planting medium 21 chamfer level 22 composite stone 23 embedded glass fibers

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0029] A typical embodiment of the internal structure of the present invention is illustrated in FIGS. 1 to 3. The planter barrier consists of an outer layer 10, which serves as a decorative enclosure shell that is pre-designed and pre-finished. Its length is nominally 12 feet long though it is intended to fit any length or configuration. Ground surface trenching 14 requires 18-inch depth sufficient to absorb force against frontal impact. The outer shell and planter compartment thickness 16 ranges from ⅜ to ⅝ of an inch composed of fine aggregates of clear silica sand and alkali resistant glass fibers produced specifically for use in glass fiber reinforced concrete with glass content of at least 3% and a minimum length of 1 to 1½ inches, a high modulus glass fiber specially embedded as reinforcement. The result is a composite that combines the strength and lightweight characteristics of conventional fiberglass with the durability and longevity of cast stone.

[0030] The shell finish and color may vary depending on the aesthetic requirement of the area. This provides an added motif to the enclosure design and thus easily blends with the architecture of an improvement. This eliminates and conceals a concrete barricade look without sacrificing the need for a high level of security and protection.

[0031] A rebar-caging layer 11 serves as internal supports that add to the level of protection provided by the invention's material technology. The rebar caging designs FIG. 4 demonstrate a plurality of vertically and horizontally arranged standard grade #4-5 steel. FIGS. 4A and 4B shows a plan view and elevation view respectively.

[0032] The planting compartment FIG. 5 illustrates a chamfered base surface on the lower backside supported by similarly inclined rebar underneath the compartment. A distance between the planting compartment and the outer enclosure is created for back filling of compacted cement aggregate 15. FIG. 5A shows thicker concrete surface from the rear segment in contrast to the front. The chamfered lower back walling is designed to provide an oblique angle intended to deflect the force of an impacting vehicle thereby generating progressive resistance. The broken line 21 indicates the level of chamfered base relative to the back vertical walling.

[0033]FIG. 6 shows a proprietary compound of graded stone and cement 22 reinforced with long-strand Alkaline Resistant glass fiber 23.

[0034] From the description above, a number of advantages can be found with this invention:

[0035] 1) A multi-layered planter barrier comprising of an outer enclosure shell made of glass fiber reinforced concrete that is pre-engineered and pre-designed, a rebar caging made of light grade steel back filled with compacted cement, and a planting compartment intended for soil;

[0036] 2) With an outer decorative design it eliminates the flat concrete look and conceals the concrete barricade thereby providing ability for “progressive resistance” to the impact of a moving vehicle;

[0037] 3) The result is a Magnum force protection Planter Barrier that combines the strength and lightweight characteristics of conventional fiberglass with the durability and longevity of cast stone.

[0038] While my above description contains a number of specifications, these should not be construed as limitations on the scope of the invention, but rather as an exemplification of one preferred embodiment thereof. Many other variations are possible. 

I claim:
 1. A planter crash barrier comprising of:
 2. pre-engineered and pre-finished outer shell;
 3. a middle layer with rebar caging compacted with aggregate cement;
 4. and a planting compartment.
 5. The planter crash barrier shell and planting compartment consist of graded stone and cement compound reinforced with strands of alkaline resistant glass fiber and polymer admixture.
 6. The outer shell of claim 1 wherein said shell has three dimensional shape and decorative appearance.
 7. The three-dimensional shape and appearance of claim 6 wherein said shape and appearance are inter-changeable with pre-engineered and pre-finished shell and finish designs.
 8. The planting compartment of claim 4 wherein the said planting compartment comprise a double vertical walling providing a third layer to the barrier. Said vertical walling is chamfered to the base forming a reclined surface on the backside of said base at 30 to 45 degrees angle opposite the front vertical wall. 